THE Constitution's new electoral system negates the non-negotiable principle of one person, one vote, one value, claims the Citizens Constitutional Forum.
"The reason is that political parties and independent candidates must meet a threshold of 5 per cent of votes cast to qualify for a seat," the forum said in its analysis of the new Constitution.
"In a 50-seat Parliament, each seat should correspond to 2 per cent of votes.
"But if two small parties and an independent candidate each received 4 per cent of the total votes, they would not get any seats."
The CCF claimed that in such a situation, the votes of more than one in every 10 voters would be wasted.
It said the Constitution's election system must be read together with the Political Parties Decree 2013.
"Restrictions in that decree make it likely that just a few large parties will be registered while provisions in the Constitution mean all parties are likely to be tightly controlled by their leaders.
"Under the decree, parties must meet strict criteria to register, including a requirement to gather 5000 signatures. Only large parties can meet this burden.
"In terms of control of MPs, they can lose their seats if they resign from their party, vote against their party or abstain, and are expelled from their party.
"Such provisions may have their place in an open list proportional representation system as they ensure MPs represent the party that voters chose."
The CCF said it may be difficult for an MP to dissent against an unpopular decision made by his or her party.
It also claimed there were dangerous political consequences associated with the extreme limits on the Bill of Rights in Chapter 2.
"For example, if a political party controlled over half the seats in Parliament, it could amend the election law to allow (or demand) that political parties explicitly campaign as ethnic parties.
"Since this law could be passed as an exception to the Bill of Rights under section 6.5c, there is no constitutional check against the return of communal politics."